Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Please do not take the criticisms personally. My comments were about the video clip and the exercise on it. It is not a comment on what you do overall, since I have no idea about that.

I too have video clips on my website showing some specific "flow drills" which would not at all be indicative of what I am doing overall but rather are used for very specific purposes. That's all I am saying... Exercises must be designed to imprint the proper physical and mental elements through repetition.

Being creative about training is the only way to get past the mediocre, in my opinion. I tried quite a few things in my younger days. I don't do them now. I understand things better now. But I got ahead by trying them, learning what worked and what didn't. But I also got out. Don Angier, Toby Threadgill, Chuck Clark, Kenji Ushiro, Tetsuzan Kuroda, Chris Clark, Chris Petrilli, etc all have changed my Aikido as I tried to figure out what my teachers were doing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Tim Cartmell and what he does. But he is not an Aikido teacher. Training with him will not make you a great Aikido practitioner.

"Aiki" is not so easy to attain in ones technique. Often, practitioners lose patience as they progress and start focusing on applied technique before they have mastered the principles involved. Not all of what "works" is "aiki". The aiki arts are a small sub section of the larger martial arts world. It's quite possible to develop technique which works and still not have it be Aikido or an example of "aiki".

I would recommend getting some exposure to Chuck Clark Sensei (Jiyushinkai) or Howard Popkin Sensei (Daito Ryu Roppokai). Both teach principle based technique with enough depth that it can keep you busy for many years. Both are quite capable of great skill in application. Both are really superior at teaching what they know. Keep training with Tim Cartmell, his stuff is excellent as well.

I would also recommend, as Ron Tisdale suggested, that you network with David Valdez who posts here. David has sent me video of what he has been working on and it seems quite up your alley but with some of the issues I mentioned solved. You could get quite a lot out of him I think.

I think I have to disagree with a lot of what is being said, unfortunately, for me, but also for everyone that has said it, everyone has said pretty much every basic status-quo slogan one can ever say.

When you want to develop yourself, truly making the art your own, you are going to have to throw all these slogans out the door. To make an art yours, you are going to have to deconstruct yourself, and that, somewhere in the process of making the art yours, will mean that you will have to deconstruct the art. This will include deconstructing every facet that holds or presents the art as a construct (which can only ever be something other than you). This means, for example, at some point you are going to have to move beyond your teacher, the founder, tradition, your students, techniques, etc. This is not a bad thing, and, believe it or not, the world will not end. Nor will you end in ruin, nor will you ruin your students, nor will the Founder turn over in his grave.

I can't speak for everyone, but I think Paul's statements need to be heard. Folks, in a conversation like this, need to understand that there will inevitably be a propensity to discuss things as if everyone is talking about the same thing - when they are not. This is how the status quo is maintained. For better or for worse, Chris' video is presenting things (i.e. randori) in a way that is quite different from what is more commonly seen in dojo all over the world. In fact, outside of my own dojo, the only other place where I've seen folks take seriously the charge of neutralizing nage is Chris' video and the one by Segal. If someone else has a clip of such training - please share it. If you have a clip, it will undoubtedly add to the conversation - or if you can find one.

Still, with all this talk of irimi and striking, etc., I have a strong suspicion that folks are not attempting to neutralize nage like they are in Chris' video (i.e. Irimi and striking is not the best tactic for when folks are set on neutralizing your ass so that they can gang up on you). So, while there may be a lot more to do (which I'm sure Chris does),Chris video, for me, seems to be attempting to address something that is not at all commonly addressed in the Aikido world.

In short, let's get more clips going here (let's do some youtube searches) so we can have a more established context.

I am interested in seeing his demonstrations.
I have to admit that as one who is an absolute Aikido-Junkie, when I hear people start talking a lot about ki, I get a little nervous. I believe in it and know the human body is capable of doing some amazing things, but when I see some of the "Jedi Ki tricks" I become very disappointed.

I have never been thrown without being touched.
But I welcome the opportunity.

But Ushiro Shihans article on AJ seems like it should be very educational.
I will buy the DVD and your seminar as a Christmas gift to myself.

We strive to train with real effectiveness..."Not falling just to fall, or to make others look good." We also incorporate combination strikes to learn how to identify intention versus feignts.

I also go over to the BJJ guys and we train together.
As well as the Karate guys.

It's interesting that you mention BJJ, because BJJ was really my "wake up call" as far as aikido training goes. I'm not sure if your experience differed, but for me, it seemed abundantly clear that aikido techniques were just from Mars in that context. The ruleset was basically anything goes, except for striking. However, aikido techniques seemed entirely out of place, whereas each day learning BJJ techniques made me better at empty-hand grappling. I might as well have been doing kendo or naginata-jutsu, for all the advantage it gave me. At most, I would suggest that aikido could be a useful supplement for someone with a judo background. (Unfortunately, judo itself prohibits wristlocks in shiai. But, under something like sambo rules, it might work.)

Aikido just doesn't seem to have anything to do with empty-hand grappling. But you don't have to take my word for it: do you ever see BJJ or MMA people using aikido? No. If it worked for empty-hand grappling/striking, they almost certainly would. Jason DeLucia has worked very hard at making it work, and his praise is confined to, "It teaches some interesting principles." or "I once used something like a sankyo to peel off a choke." The exception that proves the rule.

What I like about Chris' idea is that it fits for both technical and historical reasons. Committed wrist grabs? Check. Reluctance to use wrestling-style clinches? Check. "Short-term" kneeling/pinning techniques that focus on the arm rather than the body? Check. As for historical: if you imagine two people fighting for their lives on the ground, the winner is likely going to be whoever grabs a rock and bashes the other. At which point, the fight becomes about controlling the arm that's holding the rock.

I've only briefly tried something like Chris' type of randori out myself, but it immediately made more sense. I found myself doing aikido techniques without thinking: it was just the most natural thing to do. Granted, this is somewhat anecdotal, because I was working with people who were 1) aikidoka, so arguably conditioned to take ukemi 2) somewhat smaller than me.

I wish I could post some videos of my own, but unfortunately, it's too cold to practice outside, and my friends and I are still seeking out mat space. As soon as I can, I will try to contribute.

not again ....
lets give a kid a lolypop and tell him that he must never give it to the other kid no matter what!

same result ...

ok so lets see some very very basic errors, that even a 10 year old could easily do, and it seems that this master could even think on it while doing this randori kind of:

here you can think of many possible ways to 'hit to injure' the opponent:

1. bump to the head
2. kick to the balls
3. break the knee

and more..

should i say that the entire video goes like this? countless opportunities to 'kill' the enemy, and none -street- attacks has been used.
this alone shows that the entire training is completely lack of basic knowledge of any kind of fighting art (not even considering aikido) and if u think u can save ur self from this kind of attacks in reality.. i would consider getting a gun!

More seriously, I think the reason there weren't any such strikes was that one of the rules they were going with was "no striking".

Also, I'm no expert, but I hear that it's pretty hard to just break a knee with a kick. Hurt a leg, sure, and leg kicks are a common part of arts like muay thai. But the magical "one kick and ur knee iz broken lolz" thing doesn't, as far as I know, really exist. (Otherwise, MMA fights would end really fast when one guy threw a shot to the other's knee.)

For another thing, the danger of throwing a kick there is that you'd be on one leg while in contact with the other person. You might get counter-thrown pretty badly, and lose the fight over the knife.

When you learn a basic curriculum, sooner or later, if you are serious about yourself and your training, you are going to ask questions regarding two very related things: You are going to ask questions on what are the basics, what are they really; and you are going to ask questions on what is beyond the basics (which the word "basics" implies - that there is something beyond them). If you are of the nature and/or lifestyle where these questions are framed from within a martial paradigm, you are inevitably going to seek and do a type of training that is related to the development of basics, or the refinement of basics, in a martial sense but you are, unlike before you asked these kinds of questions, no longer going to settle upon training devices/drills that gave you the basics and the questions in the first place. There's going to be a departure of sorts - because there has to be.

In other words, once you gain a context (i.e. kihon waza), if you want to expand or develop that context, to answer questions you have on it, you have to move beyond that context to get the answers, as the context only gave you the questions. This is why, in my experience, whenever you see someone simply repeating the same training regimen that was introduced to them, over and over, for decades, you also see someone that has no questions and needs no answers. When this happens, training preoccupations are centered upon things like fame, rank, title, etc., and these things, rather than martial viability, are used to demonstrate to oneself the "validity" of their practice.

So, for example, a very simple example, you learn Irimi Nage, and after a while, you are no longer preoccupied with left foot here, right hand there, etc., and you certainly aren't going to let yourself buy into the notion of if you are shidoin or shodan or shihan, etc., that that means you and your practice are martially viable (noting that that is your concern), what happens? After a while, you start to take notice of what works and when, and why, and with whom. And this starts a new chain of investigation, one that has, from one point of view, nothing to do with left foot here, right hand there, etc., but from another point of view has EVERYTHING to do with left foot here, right hand there, etc. In the end, it's different, but it's the same, but it's different, etc. So, you end up doing things that are the same, but different, but the same, but different from kihon waza. And, depending upon where you are in your own investigations, what you see when you look at another's said investigations may appear to be different, may be the same, may be different, etc.

That said, my thing here is that once we accept that no drill can or should cover all of the aspects of a combative encounter, a person should look at such training and be able to say, "I see where that might be relative," at the very moment that they realize why and how it is different from that context that motivated such additional investigations in the first place. In other words, it's supposed to not look like normal kihon waza training, and the fact that it's not doing nor attempting to do anything that kihon waza does does not mean that it's not vital to one's overall training in Aikido.

I will offer the following examples - asking you to note how far the first drill looks from an eventual application of Irimi (i.e. how it looks nothing like Aikido or any Aikido that any "aikidoka" would like to do), but as you watch, you see more and more how Irimi is being studied deeper and deeper by the practitioner, how it is no longer merely being by assumed by the art or the context in which it is presented to neophytes.

After a while, things related to Irimi themselves start to be influenced by the new questions and the new contexts and the new answers. So, for example, kaiten and tenken start to be understood differently, and, in turn, these things come to change Irimi, ad infinitum. You then get new angles and new timings, new axis points, etc., and maybe it these stuff was there all along, but not for you it wasn't, and not until now. Thus, I can say, this is not how my teachers did Kaiten Nage, but it is, but it isn't, but it is, but it isn't, etc.:

After that, your kaiten nage, for example, doesn't look like others', don't feel like theirs, etc. Why? Cause it's yours. You've made the art yours. That's not a bad thing - that's supposed to happen. For that to happen, and this is what I think we should get, you aren't going to go on doing the same ol' things, but you are, but you aren't, etc. So, in my opinion, if you got things to say about Chris' video, negative things, I think they should be particular things, not things of doctrine, as the whole point was to delve deeper (i.e. deconstruct) into doctrine.

If you look at our youtube videos you will see we have several different types of drills. We have many, many, more that haven't made video. We don't expect any one of them to be perfect or complete, that's why we have lots of different ones.

It is our hope that the different drills will work different skill sets.

and if u think u can save ur self from this kind of attacks in reality.. i would consider getting a gun!

One more thing. I'd like to add that I really disagree with the idea that this topic is only of interest to those who want to learn "street self-defense." I have no problem with those people, of course. However, myself, I'm not really interested in that. (Sure, it'd be nice if martial arts also gave me some capabilities I could employ in a future violent situation, but it's not high on my list.)

Rather, I think this is really important just to understand the principles and rationale of aikido.

After a while, things related to Irimi themselves start to be influenced by the new questions and the new contexts and the new answers. So, for example, kaiten and tenken start to be understood differently, and, in turn, these things come to change Irimi, ad infinitum. You then get new angles and new timings, new axis points, etc., and maybe it these stuff was there all along, but not for you it wasn't, and not until now. Thus, I can say, this is not how my teachers did Kaiten Nage, but it is, but it isn't, but it is, but it isn't, etc.:

I watched your videos and think that they are good training exercises. What struck me, though, about them and about your comments, is that my impression is that the goal is to throw one's partner. I don't see the basic skills that are learned in fundamental practice being explored and applied to this more intense context.

Again, I'm working off my impressions of what things appear to be in the videos, so please don't take anything personally, these are just some thoughts, but I have been teaching Aikido for 25 years and used to spar standup with my BJJ teacher, as well as some pretty mean boxers and other arts, so I have some sense of this stuff. Making Aikido "your own" is a "worthy" goal, and all well and good - but when does it cease to become AIkido and become just what a person feels may work for them in an attack? I do not subscribe to the notion that "anything is Aikido." To me, the danger here is that goals, intentions, basics, and the essential things that make Aikido Aikido, can easily get lost in the service of - I need to know how to deal with a more intense attack.

In the years that I have seen other styles, I have not seen too much in the way of training that I would consider more than just "dojo Aikido" which to me is more about performing techniques than actually doing and applying AIkido. What I have seen beyond that mostly disappointed me, because it tended to go in directions that to me were not Aikido, just attempts to "fight back" or "beat the attacker" - not the application of Aikido skills in the new context.

For me, there are many other "levels of attack and learning" involving the intent to:

I believe that it is imperative (for me at least) to explore and understand how what is contained in kihon waza applies to these other levels of intention and attack. There are things that have to be adapted, yes, but for me, there is a fundamental criteria for what I will "accept" as "the right direction" and what I will not.

Dealing with a good kick/puncher with just "dojo Aikido" is not easy at all, generally speaking. But where one finds the "solutions" that one comes up with to do so, to me, is very important. To a large degree, that means understanding all the skills that are applied in the encounter leading up to a technique, particularly how apply Aikido to cover the main strike zones, not just - take hits, get there, and throw. BJJ has very good ways of entering and taking the person down - some of which I would say are akin to Aikido, many of which, to me, are not. Other arts have ways of entering and concluding a boxing attack as well.The difference, for me, is what's important.

I'm not trying to be critical for the tsake of criticizing, just expressing some thoughts about how one goes about exploring shu-ha-ri.

Training is all about imprinting. If you start with chaos you end with chaos. Exercises which teach hesitation, back away, excited emotional state. etc are not what you want to be imprinting.

snip

Technique which is merely operating on a physical basis is simply jiu jutsu rather than aiki.

People need to be very careful about how they design their training exercises because they imprint mental and physical habits with every repetition.

snip

I'm not criticizing an attempt to develop better practice. I am just pointing out that the exercises used as presented do not necessarily imprint the right things. Students training this way will get very good at avoiding but will not develop high level skills using the principles of "aiki".

Extremely important points here, I think.

It's better to spend a lot of time exploring before coming to conclusions that may or may not be what one thinks they are....

When you learn a basic curriculum, sooner or later, if you are serious about yourself and your training, you are going to ask questions regarding two very related things: You are going to ask questions on what are the basics, what are they really; and you are going to ask questions on what is beyond the basics (which the word "basics" implies - that there is something beyond them). If you are of the nature and/or lifestyle where these questions are framed from within a martial paradigm, you are inevitably going to seek and do a type of training that is related to the development of basics, or the refinement of basics, in a martial sense but you are, unlike before you asked these kinds of questions, no longer going to settle upon training devices/drills that gave you the basics and the questions in the first place. There's going to be a departure of sorts - because there has to be.

Thus my comments on shu-ha-ri. What you're describing is what it feels like to be heading into a 'ha' phase of training. Rote mimicry becomes painful somehow to the practitioner as they start to reject some things that they had taken for granted. Suddenly they find themselves questioning all of the basics, looking for holes rather than for where they are valid. The danger here, is not being guided through this process. A greater danger is deciding to open a dojo at this point.

I agree that too many dojo cho are plodding along doing the exact same thing they have always done, repeating verbatim what they were taught decades ago. Frankly, a lot of people never get to the ha phase, they spend their entire martial careers in a vain attempt to mimic their teachers to a precision that is absurd. They often get very good at what they do, but they do not have the understanding that they would have gained if they had toughed it out through the ha phase, admitting to themselves and their teachers that they had doubts and working through them.

The presentation of shu-ha-ri is something I really admire Kendo for. To present this idea, that it's normal to doubt, get frustrated, even outright reject what one has been taught can go a long way in helping the student through that period. Of course, one can only be guided if one's teacher is up to the task, meaning that they have made that transition themselves. Many, unfortunately, have not.

For those of you less familiar with shu-ha-ri, please understand that I don't mean to imply that these phases are somehow are rigid, or that being in the ri phase of ones training amounts to enlightenment or anything so lofty. There is a nice article archived on the aikido FAQ here.

Note that in the article, they refer to the 'lonely' student. It is fairly common due to the relatively rare nature of Iai instruction (the author's context) for students to continue training on their own or in study groups that only get infrequent correction/face time with their supervising instructors. It should not be confused with someone who has broken off on their own against the teaching of the ryu-ha. The goal of the student is still to progress within the context of their ryu-ha.

Rather, I think this is really important just to understand the principles and rationale of aikido.

Well put.

If I were to approach "defining" how, in my style, we apply our Aikido to more intense attack scenarios, I would say that there are three important basic things:

- don't let your attacker define the angles/position (control positioning and movement as best you can)

- know how to cover the strike zones (in an "Aiki" way - this is key and I have not seen this in many dojo or videos)

- know your "goals" - That is, "Aikido" - not to throw or fight or do damage, but to blend, process, redirect etc.... to track and be safe and survive in a particular way....

Good Aiki-ken often exemplifies these well.... it tracks the process and the conclusion comes when it is time, always controlling the angles and position, and always staying safe, not risking anything to "achieve a cut or to win" so to speak.

there is a different between aiki and child play, and it's not very fine thik line between them I must say.

From chris' point of view, he looks at his videos/Training as if they are a 'path' to some 'light' that eventually supposedly will end up as a new fighting system.
this is true when u have researched ur entire life for the best ways, effective ways, faster ways, important ways to hurt,destroy,stop, block, counter a attacker or multiple attackers.

but, taking an already built up system, (in here, Aikido) and applying non working methods to it, does not mean it will lead to a new MA system, as we saw from the videos.

And a lot of people here are giving him positive reinforcement just because they look at the philosophical aspect of MA and not the physical part, trying to be another o-sensei or something.

i challenge everyone to go to the streets, armed with a knife and pick-up on a gang. good luck - not that it is not possible, but very unlikely that you will do much good from it.

and than some will say, 'doing kind of techniques will improve ur survival since u practice "life alike" attacks' - well, running will improve you survival 100% thats for sure.

David, your post and at least the last video (I'll get to the others eventually, work is a PItA just now), are excellent. Note, however, that at least in my eyes, it is still recognizable as aikido, and not just because of the hakama ().

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)

Chris,
You posted the clip and asked for feedback. People have taken a lot of time and trouble to give you that feedback. Now you are pretty much writing it off because it wasn't what you wanted to hear. You are only paying attention to the folks who are in agreement with you. I don't think you needed to ask for feedback if that's all you wanted to do.

I don't care if you agree with my thoughts on your clip or not. But I sure don't need to have you telling me I don't "get it" when I've given my feedback when it was requested. Next time just put the clip up under the heading "Tell me how much you like my clip...", then everyone will know to answer correctly.
- George

After reading the past couple of post I would make these comments to clarify my own views in a simplistic way.

1. If you are looking at the video from a RBSD perspective. "two thumbs down". Get competent training if this is your goal. You don't have a clue.

2. If you are exploring principles and movement and how it all works together (or doesn't), then keep going down that path as you will figure it out, and it is good to play around and experiment with different paradigms, pressures etc.

3. Never go into a knife fight empty handed. Never bring a knife to a knife fight, bring a gun. The winner of a hand to hand battle is the guy whose buddy shows up first with a (insert knife, gun, or stick).

Number 3 translate into, don't rely on budo practice to translate to reality. There are no fair fights.

Chris,
You posted the clip and asked for feedback. People have taken a lot of time and trouble to give you that feedback. Now you are pretty much writing it off because it wasn't what you wanted to hear. You are only paying attention to the folks who are in agreement with you. I don't think you needed to ask for feedback if that's all you wanted to do.

I don't care if you agree with my thoughts on your clip or not. But I sure don't need to have you telling me I don't "get it" when I've given my feedback when it was requested. Next time just put the clip up under the heading "Tell me how much you like my clip...", then everyone will know to answer correctly.
- George

Whoa there George.
First off I wasn't' talking to you when I made that comment. Secondly that's not what I meant. That wasn't meant as an attack, I'm just saying that most people are picking on tiny points and not getting at the heart of the matter.

I have thanked people many times for their comments. Even though hardly any of them agree with me, and many have been made as an attempt to belittle my training methods, and myself. I want to be able to look at my practice from different angles and that's exactly what this has given me. I'm very thankful.

However as much as I am open to everyone's input, I still have my own opinion. If anything on here drastically changed the way I feel about my training I'd be surprised, but I'm open to it.

You've got to understand much of what you're seeing is many years in the making, not just a flippant idea I had yesterday.

Whoa there George.
First off I wasn't' talking to you when I made that comment. Secondly that's not what I meant. That wasn't meant as an attack, I'm just saying that most people are picking on tiny points and not getting at the heart of the matter.

My impression is that it's the other way around, frankly. Or what you see as the heart of the matter, to others, is not.

Quote:

I have thanked people many times for their comments. Even though hardly any of them agree with me, and many have been made as an attempt to belittle my training methods, and myself. I want to be able to look at my practice from different angles and that's exactly what this has given me. I'm very thankful.

I think that might be because you have a school and are putting yourself out there as an instructor. When they see some of what you are teaching, they have a reaction to it because they feel that it is not something that should be being taught, in a sense. I would personally agree with this. To me, it seems like your experimenting with people under the guise of teaching them a martial art, and to me, that's very dangerous.

Quote:

You've got to understand much of what you're seeing is many years in the making, not just a flippant idea I had yesterday.

That's the point - to be honest, if that stuff is many years in the making, that "worries me", because I personally find a lot of it unbalanced and unsafe. Apparently I am not the only one. There's no pretty way to say that, although I don't mean to be mean about it. I'm basing that on watching most of your videos, not just a few, which wouldn't necessarily tell the whole story. Videos themselves don't necessarily either, but there seems to be a consistancy to your training and performance of Aikido that seems discernable.

Whoa there George.
First off I wasn't' talking to you when I made that comment. Secondly that's not what I meant. That wasn't meant as an attack, I'm just saying that most people are picking on tiny points and not getting at the heart of the matter.

I have thanked people many times for their comments. Even though hardly any of them agree with me, and many have been made as an attempt to belittle my training methods, and myself. I want to be able to look at my practice from different angles and that's exactly what this has given me. I'm very thankful.

However as much as I am open to everyone's input, I still have my own opinion. If anything on here drastically changed the way I feel about my training I'd be surprised, but I'm open to it.

You've got to understand much of what you're seeing is many years in the making, not just a flippant idea I had yesterday.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings George, or anyone else's.

No problem on my end... sorry if I took what you said wrong.... Absolutely no hard feelings on my end. Life is way too short. Good luck with your efforts... know that I think it is far better to be creative in your training and have some hits and some misses than to sit someplace doing the same thing for 20 or 25 years with no change... Do network with David... he's doing some good stuff I think.

I think this is what I was trying to discuss, that one can look at this stuff and say exactly what you said, "I don't see the basic skills that are learned in fundamental practice being explored and applied to this more intense context." In other words, my point was that rather than looking at these alternative ways of training and going with our first or learned impression, we should, because of their very nature, expect them to look strange to us - different from what we normally do and expect via our training.

In that same sense, one has to realize that whenever one is devising training drills, one is in essence moving both further and closer to realistic training (in relation to Kihon Waza - which is always idealistic and thus non-realistic). They are moving further in that the very nature of the drill, of any drill, is to work on "x" or "y" and not on the totality of reality. In other words, it's like the attribute "specialization." Sure, it means you are really good at "x," but it also means there's a whole lot more you are not good at. So, when you work on through a drill, you are going to work on "x" and look to pick up "y" and "z" in another drill. Still, one is fine with this, or should be, since one realizes quickly that what makes reality "reality" is that it cannot ever be captured in totality. Training, then, can only ever function as a idealization or as a specialization. That's just the way it is.

So, in my first video, we are working on Irimi, that's it. But, we are doing it under conditions not usually practiced in kihon waza (e.g. multiple strikes, fakes and feints, counters, measuring strikes, contact, unrelenting offenses, etc.). The "throw," which is really just a kuzushi, is not the end goal. It is simply that which marks that one has fully entered under the new conditions. Why do this? The first motivation is this: Because entering under these conditions is initially a lot harder than entering under the conditions set up by kihon waza. (Note: In my opinion this is because one has not yet learned what needs to be learned about Irimi.) Sure, entering under conditions that include weapons and ground-fighting, multiple attackers, etc., would make it harder still, but that does not take away from the fact that you are now training to enter under conditions that are much more trying than in how kihon waza is normally practice (for good reasons). In other words, this is still a challenge, and, in most cases, being able to meet the challenge of irimi in kihon waza does not at all mean that you can meet this challenge here. So, as a challenge, there is still lots to learn from, and what you will learn will inevitably go back to your kihon waza applications - which, more than the "throw" (what I called kuzushi), is the common point to all of this (since we are trying to investigate Aikido). Hence, why I showed that last clip of Kaiten Nage.

As to, "When does it cease to become AIkido and become just what a person feels may work for them in an attack?" I can't say I really entertain these questions too much. If I do, I certainly don't see them as leading to anything DANGEROUS (as you have written). Danger for me is a guy with an assault rifle that just robbed me at the mall and saw my sheriff's badge in my wallet, and I have my two kids with me and my wife is at the Mrs. Field's buying cooking, having no idea what's going on. That's dangerous. Folks exploring arts and becoming artists is a creative process, one that hurts no one and no thing but for those folks and things that are looking to set up museums, ones where they don't have to change the exhibits. Still, even they survive. In other words, I do have to say that I'm against this notion of preservation for preservation sake. To be human and to practice art is to live and to live is to learn and to learn is to change. That said, and as Ron has noted elsewhere in this thread, my end results still look like Aikido.

Why or how that happens, for me, is because Aiki represents the greatest tactical advantage (here I'm only speaking martially - of course there are other advantages, more important advantages to Aiki). Thus, anyone who is really going to pursue a real martial tactical advantage, in a truly life and death, anything goes setting, is going to apply Aiki, or they are going to rely too heavily on luck. In other words, my experience has been, and here I'll talk about both of Aiki's major aspects, if you are truly serious about Peace/Love and/or about surviving combative experiences, you are going to travel along the same lines that Osensei did, and no matter how individualized your expression may be, it's going to be related and folks are going to be able to note that. So, on the one hand, I don't fear change, not out to preserve for the sake of preservation, and I feel that anyone serious about this stuff is going to follow along the lines of the Founder. Heck, if I didn't believe that, I would be contradicting myself were I to suggest that Osensei realized some universal truths that are common to all mankind, etc. And I do believe that Osensei realized some universal truths.

Your other points I think are perfectly sound. You are right, there is a whole lot of stuff that goes with Aiki that happens beyond, even previous to, an actual tactical application. And, these things are indeed very relative to one's tactical achievements. These things have to be studied too. They are just not all studied here in this drill. Why? Because it's still hard to do Irimi under these conditions set forth, and for me, if you can't do Irimi under these conditions, then you may in the end ask too much of these other kinds of considerations that you have listed - and asking too much of anything isn't, for me, Aiki. Additionally, while being trained in these other types of considerations may help one get more out of his/her Irimi, it is not automatically given that one's Irimi is at its full (or higher) potential. Studying Irimi then, even under these drill conditions, is still of value to one's overall practice.

In the end, it's a choice - how one trains. I feel each person has to make this choice. But, the one that makes a choice after they have tried this stuff, even if he/she then chooses to call this "wasted time," is always going to be much better off than the person that outright dismisses it as either something they already do, can do, or have done in the same breath that they are dismissing it for being different from how they practice or how they were taught to practice. In the end, this was my main point.

Wouldn't be great, in this day and age, if we all attempted this drill, filmed ourselves, posted those clips, and then talked about what we felt or did not feel? How cool would that be!

thanks for your comments Larry - lots of good points. Sorry if I didn't get to address them all.

.
Aikido just doesn't seem to have anything to do with empty-hand grappling. But you don't have to take my word for it: do you ever see BJJ or MMA people using aikido? No. If it worked for empty-hand grappling/striking, they almost certainly would. Jason DeLucia has worked very hard at making it work, and his praise is confined to, "It teaches some interesting principles." or "I once used something like a sankyo to peel off a choke." The exception that proves the rule.

.

My original background is in Shotokan Karate and in Goju, so my thinking of Aikido is "I Think" a bit different. I find that when cross-training I have mixed success. Most of the time when my training doesn't fare well is when I am thinking about techniques to use. But when relaxed and not being afraid of takedowns etc. Technique just happens. I train with those guys to find out which techniques work better for me and which ones don't.

But I think the problem with most people who train in aikido is the lack of understanding BUNKAI.

My Goju sensei used to stress the importance of understanding Bunkai (Application)
I notice that most aikidoka just go through the motions..."Grab my wrist" "Hit my head" but we need to understand the bunkai.

As far as your quote "Aikido just doesn't seem to have anything to do with empty-hand grappling."

If I understand you correctly and that is to say that there is no answer to these methods in aikido...I would have to disagree with you..."Respectfully of course" I believe that aikido has an answer to any attack, art, situation that might arise. I just think we need to figure out how and why. I belive it is all about using your imagination in training and practicing towards that.

I like that Chris is venturing out to expand his training. My issue is simply that before we venture out to do something different we should at least have a recognizable base to work from. "I didn't see it in this video"

And I believe that no matter your grade or ranking you should always have someone you are accountable to. When you have your own "Dojo" or club and you are in front, people will follow you. So you must remain honest and open to the experience of someone more experienced than you.

I didn't see any aiki in this video and it concerned me that he had students training in that manner.
That was my opinion in this issue.

Anyway I don't know if I am speaking coherently or not, I have not had sleep in 23 hours... sorry.